Can philosophy integrate the irrational as mathematics can?

Can philosophy integrate the irrational as mathematics can?

  • Yes.
  • No.
0 voters

Can the irrational be dealt with in philosophy in the same way as in mathematics?

The irrational is that which cannot be grasped by reason, which is considered “superrational”, “subrational”, “unreasonable”, but not “counterrational”, “counterreasonable”, “anti-rational”, “anti-reasonable”.

N. Hartmann speaks of the “transintelligible” and means that which is beyond the reach of human understanding.

Friedrich Wilhelm J. Schelling calls the irrational “in things the incomprehensible basis of reality, that which cannot be dissolved into understanding with the greatest effort, but remains eternally at the bottom. Out of this incomprehensible, in the proper sense, understanding is born”. Schelling teaches that all rule-like, all form arises from the rule- and formless.

Irrational numbers.

If one is to be able to perform exponentiation or root extraction with any rational numbers (in the exponent), it is necessary to introduce new numbers: the irrational numbers. There are algebraically irrational and transcendentally irrational numbers.

The totality of all irrational numbers (algebraic and transcendental) and all rational numbers gives the set of real numbers: “|R”.

R.png

What does it mean to say that something cannot be grasped by reason?

As far as mathematics is concerned, the word “irrational” simply means “not a number that can be expressed as a ratio of two integers”.

You beat me to it. :smiley:

I don’t believe there is such a thing as “transintelligible” that isn’t actually merely “not yet understood” (perhaps this belief is an example).

Nor do I believe in “the incomprehensible basis of reality”.

It seems like there have been a lot of blokes in philosophy who couldn’t understand some things so they declared that reality contains things that cannot be understood - as if those who don’t yet understand everything can be certain that it is because some things are impossible to understand - a bit arrogant.

Good question of course.

Ive resolved this problem by identifying valuing as the primary monad, the Ur-substance.

A self-valuing integrity is like a “1” in mathematics but can not be accounted for strictly by reason, as valuing is not a reasonable activity but a natural one.

Search for “self-valuing logic” if you wish to explore.

When could anyone ever declare that something is totally impossible to be understood?

When he has hidden it very well and it is one of a kind.

How could he know that it is totally impossible for anyone to ever find it (or deduce it)?

Sherlock Holmes was pretty handy with that stuff.

math is just an extension of philosophy

But dude I think we were performing mathematical functions cognitively (counting) long before we developed an audible language.

This must mean that even if math is a symbol language, it’s coherency as a language must have involved fairly accurate judgements made by pre-linguistic humans about their environment and things in it, or else we might not have survived long enough to become linguistic.

I think all this means that math is not just an abstract language, but a direct symbolic representation of very real states and events in the world. Like it mirrors the world in the way W suggests logic mirrors the world.

So in other words, our mathematical language is not something we could have gotten wrong. Like if you fuck up a mathematical judgement in certain circumstances, that mistake can be deadly.

You don’t need language to do mathematics .

What does this mean?

For example:
In logic a set of statements is said to be consistent or non-contradictory if no contradiction can be derived from it, i.e. no expression and at the same time its negation. Since inconsistent sets of statements can be used to “prove” anything, even nonsense, the absence of contradictions is indispensable for useful scientific theories, logical calculi or mathematical axiom systems.

Maybe the near absolute reductive limit that produces no further identifiable patterns of phenomenal value out of all possible sets of differences.

The reduction of all possible triads of any set into two reduced phenomenal sets of 1 and 2, until all such become indistinguishable.
( where any possible set of 2 becomes 1 at the limit of phenomenal reduction, whereby they appear absolutely indistinguishable or absolutely singularly definitely unique, to the excluded middle

Since this cant happen , but must for a total singular certainty the answer must be yes
( There must be such an X, so that Y and Z must be rational.- (( divisible or different~recognizable)) ).

If not, philosophy regresses toward it’s unrecognizable symbolic elements and their formal constructed patterns will disintegrate.

Therefore they must be integrated, virtually .absolutely.

Therefore, the absolute must be contained in the relative.The virtual must be contained in the real and also the other way around.

And how should the virtual have come into the real and the real into the virtual? :happy-hippy:

They leak or wash into each other, overlapping at limits to the point of contradiction, where they eventually exclude re-cognizanle symbolic signs .

The virtual and the real may represent any proposed affirmation and negation, setting the real, hypo-hyper real in opposition to the virtual causing a regression toward the absolute meaningless, until then, feedback systems occur between the real and the virtual.( relative)
This feedback system spill back into and from modally supposed opposing slices, cuts of reality.
The fed back modalities are the calculus of variable integration.

My supposition is abased on an inherent logical mapping which presupposes a. ‘real’ calculation

For I presume logic as inherent mapping of calculable extrinsic formal devices. - math

True but even Holmes had to have some kind of reference.

Why should the real and the virtual “leak or wash into each other, overlapping at limits to the point of contradiction, where they eventually exclude re-cognizanle symbolic signs”? :happy-hippy:

If it is true that the affectivity state of mood - the moodiness - is the basic event of our existence, something like a basic existential way of the equally original comprehension of world (cf. Heidegger), depending on its way it uncovers the being in the whole (cf. Heidegger), then it is extraordinarily important for the epistemology, because it predetermines the knowledge. It decides for or against knowledge in certain ways.

This also explains the question that you, Obsvr, asked once, namely: whether it is not better to orient oneself not according to truth and reality, but according to the prohibitions and commandments of power. Back then, I thought that was the most important question I have read here on ILP so far.

The state of feeling is important; but so is the knowledge. I am assuming that feeling is something irrational (which is not the same as anti-rational) and knowledge is something rational. If now the affectivity determines whether it wants to participate in knowledge at all and, if so, decides in favor of certain knowledge, then the power and lobby of knowledge can not resist against it at first, but later it can make the affectivity its subject in order to be able to influence it then, so that the affectivity would be tricked and only “believed” to determe, although in reality it got into dependence on the power and lobby of knowledge.

It is similar with the rational and irrational numbers in mathematics. At first, mathematics faces the irrational numbers powerlessly, but then it makes them its subject and integrates them, so that it - mathematics, which sees itself as something rational - gets power over the irrational. Mathematics still understands itself as something rational and has integrated much irrational, i.e. has learned to control it.

You’re presenting a proper Heideggerian questioning here, nice.

Heidegger through the lens of Nietzsche interprets truth as a value, that is to say as a condition to life, where a life is a self-enhancing, more primarily than it is a self-preserving; life is not static but must self-enhance in order to self-preserve. Truth is conceived as a means to be able to resist the onslaught of chaos, which itself could also be regarded as truth but in such a case truth would not be a value, but rather something to be avoided - truth would be dangerous, damaging.

And indeed, in the frequent cases where truth is set against the commandments and prohibitions of power, to pursue truth is to unleash the onslaught of chaos upon oneself.

On the other hand we can say that power represents an instance of life’s successful self-enhancing, and thus must have pursued truth in order to get to command.

And such effectivity is really subliminal holistically an undifferentiated mystical whole that can manipulate the differing levels of energy that can power the keys which open the doors of power.

Levy Bruhl sees the irrational as prevy to participatory, albeit unknown inter-personal energy.

Taboo originates from such relational matrixes.
Totems are erected as gross symbolic reminders of such.

(That is if mathematics and the language of philosophy can be understood as an exclusivity with the social sciences subordinated yet pre-integrated with philosophy.

Logic and sense being the widest perimeters between mathematics and language.)

Ultimately, yes - well of course every psychedelic trip offers this space but not each trippant is capable of living, being there. Most get ‘bad trips’ at first – the two approaches to truth and power which form that logical dichotomy and mystical whole can be seen as two doorways that enter the same space (that which is thus beyond both truth and power, uniting them) and have to be entered at once in order to enter the, um, dragon.

And then of course I read Bruce Lee

for sure. What are your thoughts of the Lacanian Real on this, is it related to that mass which subjects by its irrational vitality which cant be penetrated by truth, which cant be employed? Is this connected to deep layers of the mind, theta wave, massive interpersonal conjectures and echo’s of that which is known as truth?

Truth is like a gong that makes the cave known to itself as a space. It is not the sound, but the gong itself. The sound is released by truth and we can follow the sound to the gong. But it is not easy as the cave has many chambers which all resound the gong as if they hold its presence, some even more powerfully than the home of the gong itself.
The hidden chamber.

It turns out as you approach te gong you find a kid with an arrow in his shoulder, lying there unconsciously pale with fever. He is dreaming all of what you’re doing. He struck the gong.

Yes, as deterrents as much as reminders, scarecrows which become godlike figures of their own, evoking the fear is as much as evoking the god in the sense of “gaud”, that which can be evoked, in the non mystical, purely psychological sense, in the sense that doesn’t expect to be understood. Much of life’s art is just reminding ourselves of the god - the suggestion is plenty to trigger the immanent into bursts of transcendence which can be sensed in terms of the light sense of power, subtle electricity, tingling health; the utmost crest of nature is the full explication of the suggestion into dance, in a whirl of playful denial of truth itself; allowing truth to keep seducing us as we are replenished every Planck tick by our autonomy before truth, our power to take it or leave it.
This power is not truth. It’s not even will, it’s consciousness of consciousness, it’s not the void and it’s not god, it’s man, more precisely, woman.